- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Okay, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 30% went to real charity, WTF are they doing with the other 70%? Watch the wagons circle.The charity run by the Clintons has raised $2 billion since it was founded in 2001 -- $144.3 million in 2013 alone -- but only a small fraction of the take went to its “life-saving work,” according to analysts who monitor non-profits.
The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation claims 88 percent of the money it raises goes to actual charity work, but experts who have looked at the books put the number at about 10 percent. The rest, they say, goes mostly to salaries, benefits, travel and fund-raising.
“That claim is demonstrably false, and it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim,” said Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, a conservative online magazine.
'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable spending | Fox News
Okay, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 30% went to real charity, WTF are they doing with the other 70%? Watch the wagons circle.
'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable spending | Fox News
Okay, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 30% went to real charity, WTF are they doing with the other 70%? Watch the wagons circle.
On average, a reasonably reputable charity should spend 65% on programs.Charitable organizations usually spend a lot on themselves. What are the numbers for the International Red Cross or the UN or the Olympics people?
Well if Rush Limbaugh is saying it, it must be, well...
The Clinton Foundation has an unusual structure, in that it does a lot of the work with its own staffers. The travel and salary costs are going largely to charitable works. What conservatives are decrying as "excess spending" uses criteria that doesn't apply to the Clinton Foundation.
It sounds like the 88% figure is inflated, but not by an excessive amount. It's also difficult for charity watchdogs like Charity Navigator to rate, because it works so differently from most charities.
But hey, don't let something like nuance get in the way of a good slam, amirite?
Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity, 85 percent on overhead | PunditFact
Well if Rush Limbaugh is saying it, it must be, well...
The Clinton Foundation has an unusual structure, in that it does a lot of the work with its own staffers. The travel and salary costs are going largely to charitable works. What conservatives are decrying as "excess spending" uses criteria that doesn't apply to the Clinton Foundation.
It sounds like the 88% figure is inflated, but not by an excessive amount. It's also difficult for charity watchdogs like Charity Navigator to rate, because it works so differently from most charities.
But hey, don't let something like nuance get in the way of a good slam, amirite?
Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity, 85 percent on overhead | PunditFact
Sure. I'll get right on that, after all the SuperPACs stop hiding the identity of their donors. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/u...secret-money-flood-the-midterm-elections.html)Valiant effort. Now explain away this: Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations - Bloomberg Politics
Sure. I'll get right on that, after all the SuperPACs stop hiding the identity of their donors. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/u...secret-money-flood-the-midterm-elections.html)
Oh, and as soon as Scott Walker can prove that he didn't abuse the election laws which bar collaboration between a candidate and SuperPACs.
Edit: I guess it didn't take much work after all. The CGEP claims that they're subject to the laws of British Columbia, which (arguably) require permission before disclosing donor's names. They are probably taking an extreme stance. My point remains, though -- namely everyone is currently relying heavily on secret cash.
Sure. I'll get right on that, after all the SuperPACs stop hiding the identity of their donors. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/u...secret-money-flood-the-midterm-elections.html)
Oh, and as soon as Scott Walker can prove that he didn't abuse the election laws which bar collaboration between a candidate and SuperPACs.
There are no Canadian federal laws to that effect. The Foundation is in British Columbia, which has more restrictive privacy laws. They are very likely still pushing it, but it sounds fairly typical.Canada claims that no such law prevents these from being released.
lolThis is the most corrupt family that ever held the office.
lolYou can throw out all the trumped-up moral equivalencies you want, but nothing compares to this mafia-like duo of power freaks.
Bull****.
'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable spending | Fox News
Okay, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 30% went to real charity, WTF are they doing with the other 70%? Watch the wagons circle.
'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable spending | Fox News
Okay, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 30% went to real charity, WTF are they doing with the other 70%? Watch the wagons circle.
Did you even look at the linked documents in the article???? No of course not, get your head out of the sand!Well if Rush Limbaugh is saying it, it must be, well...
The Clinton Foundation has an unusual structure, in that it does a lot of the work with its own staffers. The travel and salary costs are going largely to charitable works. What conservatives are decrying as "excess spending" uses criteria that doesn't apply to the Clinton Foundation.
It sounds like the 88% figure is inflated, but not by an excessive amount. It's also difficult for charity watchdogs like Charity Navigator to rate, because it works so differently from most charities.
But hey, don't let something like nuance get in the way of a good slam, amirite?
Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity, 85 percent on overhead | PunditFact
Good thing you put so much thought into that rebuttal, otherwise it might have been laughably incomplete...
I gave obvious bull hockey all the thought that it deserved.
Yeah, the Clintons are all special. The rules don't apply to them. They even have special rules for how their fund runs.
You are foisting on us the most openly corrupt presidential candidate that this nation has ever seen. I really don't know how you can live with yourselves.
On average, a reasonably reputable charity should spend 65% on programs.
As noted, the Clinton Foundation does a lot in-house, so focusing exclusively on charitable grants is incorrect. They are probably not at the 88% they claimed, but are very likely above the 65% threshold.
Which rules about how they spend their money did they break?
Yes, I did!!!!Did you even look at the linked documents in the article????
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?